- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:20:18 -0400
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- CC: "webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net" <webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Kynn Bartlett wrote: > > At 07:09 AM 7/22/1999 , Bruce Bailey wrote: > >Allow me to quote from an email sent by contractor defending his work after > >I critiqued his horribly inaccessible site. Mind you, this vendor > >understands that accessibility is an issue. My main point in posting this > >here is to provide hearsay evidence that vendors will try and use WCAG as a > >"Chinese menu" -- picking and choosing among what they want. And this is > >with the current WCAG. Charles' observations are quite on the mark. We > >don't dare weaken the A/AA/AAA levels! > > I disagree entirely; I think we need to be more concerned with the > checkpoint priorities and remember they are based on "must", "should" > and "may", and not focus so highly on single-A/double-AA/triple-AAA! In the UAGL WG we have already explored the conformance issue in depth. Please refer, for example, to my summary of options discussed by the UAGL WG [1] [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999JanMar/0017.html The summary includes Kynn's proposal to allow vendors to pick and choose checkpoints they wish to/can satisfy. The working group was in favor of this option for a while (refer to a WG decision [2] to this effect). [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/1999/01/wai-ua-telecon-19990106.html#action However, in the end we did not choose this scheme for an important reason: we decided that the UA guidelines needed to ensure compatibility between two important classes of user agents: desktop graphical browsers and dependent assistive technologies. There are other possible combinations or stand-alone systems, but the WG decided that ensuring communication and interoperability between these two common classes was the first concern. To ensure compatibility, the WG decided that the picking and choosing mechanism was insufficient. > I think WCAG _should_ be a Chinese menu (anyone need that idiom > explained?) because that's how it's written and that's apparently the > intent of the document! To use it otherwise -- to decree that the > priority levels constitute a sensible implementation plan -- is > ridiculous! Staying with the East for a moment: I think that people who conform to WCAG should wear yellow belts, brown belts, black belts, etc. according to their achievements and dedication. In the world of martial arts (and to the general population) these belts represent known and standardized levels of achievement and instant recognition of them (<wink>though color alone does not suffice</wink>) is a valuable feature. People can learn a kick or a chop on its own, but the system encourages them to pursue known levels that have evolved from much experience and testing. While WCAG 1.0 admittedly does not benefit from hundreds of years of experience, the principle remains the same. In short, for those concerned with *conformance* (and not just accessibility), known levels add value. For those concerned with accessibility, other systems may be possible, including using the checklist alone to show which checkpoints one satisfies. - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Received on Monday, 26 July 1999 05:34:11 UTC